Legal Research
Cases
Martin v Commonwealth

Martin v Commonwealth

Case [2002] VSC 472

Jurisdiction

Declaration

Statutory Interpretation

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

MAJOR TORTS LIST

No. 5584 of 2002

EDWIN DOUGLAS MARTIN	Plaintiff
V
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 October 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 October 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Martin v The Commonwealth
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 472

---

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr RM Downing QC	Hollows Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr P Hanks QC	Australian Government Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

There is in this case an order that the question of law, being the choice of law to be applied to this proceeding, be set down for trial as a separate issue, pursuant to Rule 47.04. That issue now being tried, and it being accepted by both parties that it is the same issue that was determined in Burk v The Commonwealth[1], it will be determined in the same way.
[1][2002] VSC453
There will be a declaration that the law to be applied in determining all of the substantive issues in the case, (including issues going to questions of limitations and the like) is Australian law, the content of which is to be derived from the law of the Australian Capital Territory.
I think for the sake of ensuring accuracy I will further order that that order be drawn up by the solicitors for the defendant and signed by a Judge, so that that is also done.

---

Details

AGLC: Martin v Commonwealth [2002] VSC 472
Case: [2002] VSC 472
Decision Date: 24 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, Edwin Douglas Martin, the plaintiff, brought a case against the Commonwealth of Australia, the defendant, regarding a dispute arising under major torts law. The primary issue in the case was the determination of the applicable choice of law to be applied in the proceedings. This issue was set down for trial as a separate matter, with both parties agreeing that it mirrored the issue resolved in Burk v The Commonwealth. The plaintiff's counsel, Mr RM Downing QC, represented the plaintiff, while Mr P Hanks QC, representing the Australian Government Solicitor, acted for the defendant. Justice Bongiovanni presided over the case.

The court was required to decide whether the law of the Australian Capital Territory should apply to the case, as it was the same issue determined in Burk v The Commonwealth. Both parties agreed that the choice of law was the same as in Burk v The Commonwealth, and the court followed the same approach in resolving the issue. As a result, the court declared that Australian law, derived from the law of the Australian Capital Territory, would be applied to determine all substantive issues in the case, including those related to limitations and similar matters.

Justice Bongiovanni further ordered that the order be drafted by the defendant's solicitors and signed by a judge to ensure accuracy. The decision established that the applicable law for the case would be Australian law, derived from the law of the Australian Capital Territory. This ruling would have implications for the determination of the substantive issues in the case, as well as any questions related to limitations and similar matters.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that Australian law, derived from the law of the Australian Capital Territory, would be applied to determine all substantive issues in the case, including questions of limitations and similar matters. The court also ordered that the order be drafted by the defendant's solicitors and signed by a judge to ensure accuracy. This decision provided clarity on the applicable law for the case and would guide the resolution of the substantive issues at hand.

Orders